Net-based email filtering

ABSTRACT

A local gateway device receives email across the internet from a sender of the email and forwards it across the internet to an email filtering system. The email filtering system analyzes the email to determine whether it is spam, phishing or contains a virus and sends it back to the local gateway device along with the filtered determination. The local gateway device forwards the received email and the filtered determination to a local junk store which handles the email appropriately. For example, if the email has been determined to be spam, phishing or containing a virus, the junk store can quarantine the email and if the email has been determined to be non-spun and/or not phishing and/or not containing a virus, the junk store can forward the email to a local mail server for delivery.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

The present application is a continuation and claims the priority benefit of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/166,641 filed Jan. 28, 2014, now U.S. Pat. No. 9,203,785, which is a continuation and claims the priority benefit of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/155,819 filed Jun. 8, 2011, now U.S. Pat. No. 8,671,447, which claims the priority benefit of U.S. provisional application 61/353,183 filed Jun. 9, 2010, the disclosures of which are incorporated herein by reference.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

Field of the Invention

The invention is in the field of electronic mail (“email”), and more particularly in the field of filtering email for spam, phishing and viruses.

Description of the Related Art

Email has become a business critical form of communication. Resultantly, protecting email systems from attack, abuse and misuse has become increasingly important.

Early attempts required directing all external email traffic to first pass through a third-party system which provided various forms of protection, However, this required changing mail server addressing which added complexity, limited flexibility and was not always desirable.

Another prior approach was to place a protection device at the front-end of a local network to receive all external email traffic, An example of this approach is shown in FIG. 1 where a firewall device 130 is placed in front of a mail server 150. With this arrangement, firewall device 130 receives all email traffic coming to a local protected network 140 from a mail sender such as Mail Transfer Agent (“MTA”) 110 across internet 120. Firewall device 130 typically provides services such as attack prevention and email virus scanning.

In order to provide protection against email spam, also known as junk email, a separate device was typically placed between firewall 130 and mail server 150, as shown in FIG. 2, where an anti-spam appliance 145 can be seen in communication between firewall 130 and mail server 150. Anti-spam appliance 145 receives emails from firewall 130 and prevents those that are spam from reaching mail server 150. However, installing, configuring and managing yet another piece of equipment further complicates things.

As a result, in a more recent prior approach, firewall 130 was sometimes replaced by a Unified Threat Management (“UTM”) gateway device which incorporated attack prevention, email virus scanning, anti-spam functionality, etc., into a single device. However, including this much functionality into a single device increased cost and complexity and required the device to have greater processing, memory and storage capacity.

It would be desirable to reduce such cost, complexity and device capacity, while still eliminating additional equipment, yet still provide a high level of protection services.

SUMMARY OF THE PRESENTLY CLAIMED INVENTION

In one embodiment is an email filtering process comprising the steps of receiving email at a UTM gateway from an MTA across a first internet-based communication connection, sending the received email from the UTM gateway to an Email Security Appliance across a second internet-based communication connection, receiving the email with a filtered status at the UTM gateway from the E Security Appliance across a third internet-based communication connection, and sending the email with the filtered status from the UTM gateway to a Junk Store across a first local communication connection.

In a further embodiment, the email filtering process further comprises, before receiving email at the UTM Gateway from the MTA across a first internet-based communication connection, the steps of establishing the first internet-based communication connection between the UTM gateway and the MTA, establishing the second internet-based communication connection between the UTM gateway and the Email Security Appliance, establishing the third internet-based communication connection between the UTM gateway and the Email Security Appliance, and establishing the first local communication connection between the UTM gateway and a Junk Store.

In a still further embodiment, the email filtering process further comprises sending email filter processing rules from the UTM Gateway to the Email Security Appliance.

In a yet further embodiment, the email filtering process further comprises processing the email at the Email Security Appliance to determine whether it is a spam, phishing or virus containing email or a non-spam, non-phishing or not virus containing email and either giving the email a filtered status indicating spam, phishing or virus containing if the email is determined to be a spam, phishing or virus containing email or giving the email a filtered status indicating non- spam, non-phishing or not virus containing if the email is determined to not be spam, not be phishing or not containing a virus.

In a still further embodiment, the email filtering process further comprises quarantining the received email at the Junk Store if the email with the filtered status indicates that the email is spam or sending the received email from the Junk Store to a local mail server if the email with the filtered status indicates that the email is non-spam.

In a yet still further embodiment, the email filtering process further comprises checking the reputation of the IP address of the MTA against an allow list and a block list on the UTM Gateway.

In a yet further embodiment, the email filtering process further comprises checking the IP address of the MTA by the UTM Gateway checking with an IP Address Reputation Service.

In a yet still further embodiment, the email filtering process further comprises scanning the email received at the UTM Gateway from the MTA for viruses before sending the received email from the UTM Gateway to the Email Security Appliance.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 is a diagram of a prior art system.

FIG. 2 is a diagram of another prior art system.

FIG. 3 is a diagram of one embodiment of the present system.

FIG. 4 is a flowchart of one embodiment of the present method.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

A local gateway device receives email across the internet from a sender of the email, The local gateway device forwards the email across the internet to a filtering system. The filtering system analyzes he email to determine whether it is spam, phishing or contains a virus and sends it back to the local gateway device along with the filtered determination. The local gateway device forwards the received email and the filtered determination to a local junk store which handles the email appropriately. For example, if the email has been determined to be spam, phishing or to contain a virus, the junk store can quarantine the email and if the email has been determined to be non-spam and/or not phishing and/or to not contain a virus, the junk store can forward the email to a local mail server for delivery.

In one embodiment, the local gateway device provides filtering rules (otherwise known as settings) to the external filtering system. In this way, the local gateway device can control how email is to be processed by the filtering system and ultimately handled by the junk store and local mail server.

Communication between the local gateway device and the sender of the email operates in a typical fashion thus eliminating need for any internet email addressing changes (e.g., no changes need to be made to Mail Exchanger (“MX”) records held at public Domain Name Service (“DNS”) servers), etc. Further, as explained elsewhere herein, in some embodiments communication connections are established and maintained in a way to ensure integrity of the filtering operation. Offloading the filtering processing to the external filtering system eliminates the need for a local anti-spam appliance and also reduces processing, memory and storage capacity requirements of such functionality which might otherwise be performed within the local gateway device.

Referring now to FIG. 3, a diagram of one embodiment of the present system can be seen. MTA 110 is any sender of email across internet 120. UTM Gateway 330 is UTM or firewall device comprising any combination of hardware, software or firmware to perform threat management functionality as well as the functionality described herein. Protected Network 140 is a communications network that is protected against unauthorized access or use and can be a local area network, a wide area network, a virtual private network, or any combination thereof, Junk Store 340 is a hardware and/or software facility that stores or quarantines spam, phishing, and virus containing email. Mail Server 350 is a hardware and/or software server that provides email services. Junk Store 340 and Mail Server 350 may be physically separate servers or may be combined in a single physical server. Reputation Server 310 is an interact accessible server that keeps track of known good and known bad Internet Protocol (“IP”) addresses, Email Security Appliance (“ESA”) 320 is a server that performs email filtering as described elsewhere herein. It is to be understood that Reputation Server 310 and Email Security Appliance 320 may be physically separate servers, either co-located or in separate locations, or may be combined in a single physical server.

In a preferred embodiment, UTM Gateway is a UTM or firewall device, with some portions comprising software provided on a computer readable medium, all as sold by SonicWALL, Inc. of Sunnyvale, Calif., Junk Store 340 is software provided by SonicWALL, Inc., on a computer readable medium, Mail Server 350 is a Microsoft Exchange Server®. software sold by Microsoft, Corp. to be run on a server, and Reputation Server is software provided by SonicWALL, Inc. on a computer readable medium to be run on a server.

In operation, MTA 110 communicates across Internet 120 with UTM Gateway 330 to establish a communication connection to send email from MIA 110 to Mail Server 350. Optionally, UTM Gateway 330 communicates across Internet 120 with Reputation Server 310 to first check the reputation of MTA 110. UTM Gateway 330 then communicates with Email Security Appliance 320 across interact 120 to establish a communication connection. UTM Gateway 330 also communicates across Protected Network 140 (e.g., a local area network) to establish a communication connection with Junk Store 340. Junk Store 340 communicates across Protected Network 140 to establish a communication connection with Mail Server 350.

Then, when MTA 110 sends email to UTM Gateway 330 across Internet 120, UTM Gateway 330 forwards that email across Internet 120 to Email Security Appliance 320 for filtering. Email Security Appliance 320 performs filtering on the forwarded email and sends it back across Internet 120 to UTM Gateway 330 along with a filtered determination. UTM Gateway 330 forwards the email with the filtered determination across Protected Network 140 to Junk Store 340. Junk Store 340 then handles the email according to the filtered determination. For example, if the filtered determination indicates that the email is spam, phishing or contains a virus, Junk Store 340 can quarantine the email and if the filtered determination indicates that the email is non-spam and/or is not phishing and/or does not contain a virus, Junk Store 340 can send the email across Protected Network 140 to Mail Server 350 for delivery.

Referring now to FIG. 4, a flowchart depicting one embodiment of the present method can be seen.

In Step 410, a communication connection is established between UTM Gateway 330 and MTA 110. This occurs when MTA 110 contacts UTM Gateway 330 on, for example, port 25 of UTM Gateway 330 with a Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (“SMTP”) Terminal Control Protocol (“TCP”) handshake Synchronize (“SYN”) message. To ensure that MTA 110 is a valid TCP endpoint, a modified handshake is used by UTM Gateway 330 by embedding a cookie within a Synchronize-Acknowledge (“SYN-ACK”) response from UTM Gateway 330 to MTA 110. The presence and value of this cookie is verified by UTM Gateway 330 when it is received with the final handshake Acknowledge (“ACK”) sent by MTA 110 to UTM Gateway 330. If the cookie is not present or is invalid in this ACK message, the attempted connection from MTA 110 is refused by UTM gateway 330. This prevents attacks, such as SYN Flood attacks, which could otherwise tie up resources through proliferation of incomplete connections.

In Step 415, the reputation of MTA 110 is checked. In particular, a reputation check is done on the IP address of MTA 110. The reputation of MTA 110's IP address is checked by first consulting an allow list and a block list within UTM Gateway 330. If the IP address of MTA 110 is found on the block list within UTM Gateway 330, the connection with MTA 110 is refused. If the IP address of MTA 110 is found on the allow list within UTM Gateway 330 then the connection with MTA 110 is established and the process continues. If the IP address of WA 110 is not found on either the allow list or the block list of UTM Gateway 330 then UTM Gateway 330 checks the reputation of the IP address of MTA 110 with Reputation Server 310 by communicating across internet 120.

Reputation Server 310 looks up the IP address of MTA 110 within its internal database and sends a DNS answer to UTM Gateway 330 in the form of 127.0.0.X where X signifies the reputation of the IP address. Exemplary possible values for X are:

nnn.0.0.1: MTA 110 is not a known spam source

nnn.0.0.2: MTA 110 is an open relay

nnn.0.0.3: MTA 110 is a dialup spam source

nnn.0.0.4: MTA 110 is a spam source

nnn.0.0.5: MTA 110 is a smart host (relays for sites that are not secure)

nnn.0.0.6: MTA 110 is a spam-ware site

nnn.0.0.7: MTA 110 is a bad email list server

nnn.0.0.8: MTA 110 uses an insecure script

nnn.0.0.9: MTA 110 is an open proxy server

If the received IP address reputation response from Reputation Server 310 indicates that the IP address of MTA 110 is valid UTM Gateway 330 will proceed with the SMTP connection to MTA 110.

In Step 420, a first communication connection is established between UTM Gateway 330 and Email Security Appliance 320. In particular, UTM Gateway 330 initiates an SMTP connection across internet 120 to port 25 of Email Security Appliance 320. This internet-based communication connection is established using the standard SMTP protocol sequence of SYN, SYN-ACK and ACK messaging between UTM Gateway 330 and Email Security Appliance 320.

In Step 425, a second communication connection is established between UTM Gateway 330 and Email Security Appliance 320. In particular, Email Security Appliance 320 initiates an SMTP connection across internet 120 to UTM Gateway 330. However, unlike the first internet-based communication connection between UTM Gateway 330 and Email Security Appliance 320 which used the reserved SMTP TCP port 25, Email Security Appliance 320 initiates the second internet-based communication connection using port 10025 of .sup.-UTM Gateway 330. Use of port 10025 of UTM Gateway 330 for the second communication connection, rather than port 25 of UTM Gateway 330, ensures that the logical path used by unprocessed email from MTA 110 to UTM Gateway 330 differs from the logical path used for processed email from Email Security Appliance 320 to UTM Gateway 330. It is to be understood that an alternative port of UTM Gateway 330 could be used for the second communication instead of port 10025. Such alternative port could be one of a range of ports to be used, for example, in the event an Internet Service Provider (ISP) or other firewall is blocking port 10025.

In Step 430, a communication connection is established between UTM Gateway 330 and Junk Store 340, In particular, using Network Address Translation (“NAT”) redirect as known in the art, UTM Gateway 330 establishes a first local communication connection with Junk Store 340. In combination with the second communication connection between Email Security Appliance and WWI Gateway 330, this sets up a communication pathway from Email Security Appliance 320 through UTM Gateway 330 to Junk Store 340.

In Step 435, a communication connection is established between Junk Store 340 and Mail Server 350. In particular Junk Store 340 initiates a second local communication connection via an internal SMTP connection to port 25 of Mail Server 350.

In Step 440, UTM Gateway 330 optionally sends email filtering rules (settings) to Email Security Appliance 320. As explained further elsewhere herein, the email filtering rules provide Email Security Appliance 320 with the information to fitter email for UTM Gateway 330 and are sent from UTM Gateway 330 to Email Security Appliance 320 in a custom SMTP Hello (“HELO”) command referred to herein as a SonicWALL Hello (“SHLO”) command.

In Step 445, Email Security Appliance 320 sends some or all of the email filtering rules to Junk Store 340. In particular, Email Security Appliance 320 sends some or all of the email filtering rules through URI Gateway 330 to Junk Store 340 using the custom SHLO command. This provides Junk Store 340 with the information necessary to handle processed. email as explained elsewhere herein.

In Step 450, UTM Gateway 330 receives email from MTA 110. In particular, MTA 110 sends an email over the internet-based communication connection established between UTM Gateway 330 and MTA 110 in a typical fashion as known in the art.

In Step 455, UTM Gateway 330 forwards the received email to Email Security Appliance 320. In particular, UTM Gateway 330 forwards the email across the first internet-based communication connection between UTM Gateway 330 and Email Security Appliance 320.

In an optional step (not shown), UTM Gateway 330 scans the SMTP traffic of the email sent by MTA 110 for virus signatures and takes appropriate action.

In Step 460, Email Security Appliance 320 processes the forwarded email according to the email filtering rules. In particular, Email Security Appliance processes the forwarded email according to its filtering capabilities and the email filtering rules and gives the email a filtered status indicating whether or not it was determined to be spam, phishing, or virus containing email.

In Step 465, Email Security Appliance 320 sends the processed email with the filtered determination to UTM Gateway 330. In particular, Email Security Appliance 320 sends the processed email with the filtered determination across the second interact-based communication connection to UTM Gateway 330.

In Step 470, UTM Gateway 330 forwards the processed email with the filtered determination to Junk Store 340. In particular, UTM Gateway 330 forwards the processed email with the filtered determination across the first local communication connection to Junk Store 340.

In Step 475, Junk Store 340 reviews the filtered determination of the received email and handles it in accordance with the filtering rules received in step 445. If the filtered determination of the email indicates that the email is spam, phishing or contains a virus, then in Step 480, Junk Store 340 quarantines the email, Alternatively, if the spam determination of the email indicates that the email is non-spam and/or is not phishing and/or does not contain a virus, then in Step 485, Junk Store 340 forwards the email to Mail Server 350 for delivery.

SHLO commands, as explained elsewhere herein, are optionally used to provide Email Security Appliance 320 with filtering rules for filter processing and are exchanged within an SMTP connection using TCP ports 25 and 10025. In one embodiment, SHLO commands are American Standard Code for Information Interchange (“ASCII”) text encoded and use simple name-value pairs to convey information, Names are defined for the exchange of:

-   -   a. Authentication “token”     -   b. Serial number of UTM Gateway 330     -   c. IP address of MTA 110     -   d. IP address reputation mechanism used (e.g., allow list at URI         Gateway 330 and/or Reputation Server 310)     -   e. Action to take for spam, phishing and virus emails (e.g.,         allow, tag, quarantine, reject, delete)

The following is an example of a SHLO message sent by UTM Gateway 330 to Email Security Appliance 320:

-   -   SHLO sn=94d8f1 hk=a73cf9 ls=q ds=d lp=t dp=q lv=q dv=d         si=“nnnn.nnnn.nn.n” js=1 co=1

Where:

-   -   sn=94d8f1 is the encoded serial number of UTM gateway 330     -   hk=a73cf9 is the authentication token     -   ls=q indicates emails determined to be “likely spam” should be         quarantined     -   ds=d indicates emails determined to be “definite spam” should be         deleted     -   lp=t indicates emails determined to be “likely phishing” should         be tagged     -   dp=q indicates emails determined to be “definite phishing”         should be quarantined     -   lv=q indicates emails determined to be “likely virus” should be         quarantined     -   dv=d indicates emails determined to be “definite virus” should         be deleted     -   si=“nnn.nnn.nn.n” is the IP address of MTA 110     -   js=1 indicates that Junk Store 340 is currently running and         healthy     -   co=1 indicates a status determined by UTM Gateway 330 probing on         status of Email Security Appliance 320

The embodiments discussed herein are illustrative of the present invention. As these embodiments of the present invention are described with reference to illustrations, various modifications or adaptations of the methods and or specific structures described may become apparent to those skilled in the art. All such modifications, adaptations, or variations that rely upon the teachings of the present invention, and through which these teachings have advanced the art, are considered to be within the spirit and scope of the present invention. Hence, the description and the drawing should not be considered in a limiting sense, as it is understood that the present invention is in no way limited to only the embodiments illustrated. 

What is claimed is:
 1. An email filtering system comprising: a unified threat management gateway that receives an email from a mail transfer agent across a first communication connection, and checks a reputation of an Internet protocol (IP) address of the mail transfer agent; an email security appliance that: receives the email from the unified threat management gateway from the unified threat management gateway over a network communication interface; receives email filter processing rules via a custom simple mail transfer protocol HELO command over a port according to a transmission control protocol, wherein the HELO command is a customized HELO command that includes; ASCII encoded text using name-value pairs to convey information, the Internet protocol (IP) address that identifies the mail transfer agent, and at least one action that is taken according to a threat status associated with the email; identifies a filtered status of the email based on the received processing rules, wherein the unified threat management gateway receives the email and the filtered status of the from the email security appliance over the network interface, sends the to a junk store, and the junk store implements the at least one action according to the threat status associated with the email.
 2. The email filtering system of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a communication from the mail transfer agent before receiving the email from the mail transfer agent; sending a message to the mail transfer device, wherein the message is associated with a cookie; receiving a response to the communication from the mail transfer device; and identifying a connection status based on an identification of the cookie received from an external computing device.
 3. The email filtering system of claim 2, wherein an invalid connection status is identified based on not receiving the cookie from the mail transfer agent.
 4. The email filtering system of claim 2, wherein an invalid connection status is identified based on receiving a cookie from the mail transfer agent that does not match the cookie sent to the mail transfer agent.
 5. The email filtering system of claim 4, wherein a reputation of the mail transfer agent is identified based on the IP address of the mail transfer agent.
 6. The email filtering system of claim 1, wherein the first communication connection is established between the unified threat management gateway and the email security appliance according to the transmission control protocol.
 7. The email filtering system of claim 6, wherein a second communication connection is established between the unified management gateway and the email security appliance over a second port, wherein a first logical path between the mail transfer agent and the unified threat management gateway differs from a second logical path between the unified threat management gateway and the email security appliance.
 8. The email filtering system of claim 7, wherein the first logical path between the mail transfer agent and the unified threat management gateway transfers unprocessed email from the mail transfer agent and the unified threat management gateway, and the second logical path between the unified threat management gateway and the email security appliance transfers processed email from the email security appliance to an universal threat management gateway.
 9. A method for filtering email, wherein a unified threat management gateway receives an email from a mail transfer agent across a first communication connection, and the unified threat management gateway checks a reputation of an Internet protocol (IP) address of the mail transfer agent, the method comprising an email security appliance that: receives the email from the unified threat management gateway over a network communication interface, receives email filter processing rues via a custom simple mail transfer protocol HELO command over a port according to a transmission control protocol, wherein the HELO command is a customized HELO command that includes: ASCII encoded text using name value pairs to convey information, the internet protocol (IP) address that identifies the mail transfer agent, and at least one action that is taken according to a threat status associated with the email; identifies a filtered status of the email based on the received processing rules, wherein the unified threat management gateway receives the email and the filtered status of the email from the email security appliance over the network interface, sends the email to a junk store, and the junk store implements the at least one action according to the threat status associated with the email.
 10. The method of claim 9, wherein: a communication from the mail transfer agent is received before the email from the mail transfer agent is received; a message is sent to the mail transfer device, the message sent is associated with a cookie; a response to the communication is received from the mail transfer device; and a connection status is identified based on an identification of the cookie received from an external computing device.
 11. The method of claim 10, wherein an invalid connection status is identified based on not receiving the cookie from the mail transfer agent.
 12. The method of claim 10, wherein an invalid connection status is identified based on receiving a cookie from the mail transfer agent that does not match the cookie sent to the mail transfer agent.
 13. The method of claim 12, wherein a reputation of the mail transfer agent is identified based on the IP address of the mail transfer agent.
 14. The method of claim 9, wherein the first communication connection is established between the unified threat management gateway and the email security appliance according to the transmission control protocol.
 15. The method of claim 14, wherein a second communication connection is established between the unified management gateway and the email security appliance over a second port, a first logical path between the mail transfer agent and the unified threat management gateway differs from a second logical path between the unified threat management gateway and the email security appliance.
 16. The method of claim 15, wherein the first logical path between the mail transfer agent and the unified threat management gateway transfers unprocessed email from the mail transfer agent and the unified threat management gateway, and the second logical path between the unified threat management gateway and the email security appliance transfers processed email from the email security appliance to an universal threat management gateway.
 17. The method of claim 9, wherein a communication connection is established based on the identified reputation of the mail transfer agent.
 18. The method of claim 9, wherein the reputation server checks the reputation of the mail transfer agent based on at least one of a known good address list and a known bad address list.
 19. The method of claim 9, wherein the identification of the mall transfer agent is based on an Internet protocol (IP) address of the mail transfer agent. 